Is building new buildings over more uncut nature lands instead of tearing down abandoned buildings & homes bad

Question

for the environment?

Isn't resusing land for real estate & business instead of just leaving land a useless mess with useless buildings to move on to new land part of caring for the environment?

Answer 1

Both are bad - we all need to move back into caves.

Answer 2

both are bad!

Answer 3

It will create urban heating that will cause that thermometer location from 1930 to carry a higher reading.  Thus increasing the global temperature record and send everyone into a panic.

I make myself laugh.

Answer 4

No, because older buildings often contain large amounts of asbestos, lead paint, creosote, joint compound. and plumbers putty.  It is best to leave the old buildings for the termites and simply start over on a fresh job site.

Answer 5

Of course, but you won't get much agreement here.

When you throw a brick into a landfill, it's not just a brick.

A hundred years ago men pulled and formed and fired that clay by hand.  A mason took the time to lay one brick among thousands.  It took energy to fire that brick and build that building.  

When you throw it away you are wasting what does not have to be wasted.  You are disrespecting the men who put their lives into their work and all the people who lived and loved in that building and the environment from which God gave us the brick in the first place.

But in our current economy, none of these external costs are counted, so it appears to be cheaper to build from virgin materials on virgin land.  

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Answer 6

THATS GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ENVIRONMENT, BUT IT SEEMS MORE SCENSE TO RE-DO RATHER THAN BUILD NEW FROM OUR FORESTS, BUT MONEY WISE CHEAPER TO BUILD NEW AND TRIPLE CHARGE MORE.== ENVIRONMENT MEANS ATMOSPHERE, NOT LOOKS.